B  L 

180 

R6 

1908 

MAIN 


UC-NRLF 


B  P.    7tM  023 


7°  *r  <K> 


STUDENT    SERIES    Number    Three 

"NOT  LESS   DOUBTING   BUT  MORE   THINKING"  —  FLINT 
"NOT    LESS   THINKING    BUT   PIORE    LIVING "  —  RODGER 


A  Science  of  the 


Ultimate 


By  JAY.  G.  RODGER 


President  of  the  "AMERICAN  UNIVERSITY  UNION" 

Professor  of  "The  Science  of  Religion"  in  the  State  Chair  of  California 

Founded  by  the  California  University  Union 

Author  of  "The  Gospel  of  Science" 


Published  by  California  University  Union,  1 2  7  W.  6th  St.,  Los  Angeles 


"UNIVERSITY  UNION" 

*******^^   ^**^?*^** 

The  name  University  Union  expresses  the  line 
of  education  which  it  carries  on.  It  is  the  very 
highest  grade  of  University  work.  If  the 
sciences  of  Astronomy  and  Geology,  of  Botany 
and  Zoology  are  University  studies,  how  much 
higher  is  the  Science  of  the  Ultimate !  If  there 
be  a  highest  grade  of  University  work,  is  it  not 
the  Science  of  the  Ultimate? 

The  work  of  the  University  Union  is  to  help 
supplement  the  lack  in  our  national  system  of 
education.  It  does  this  by  establishing  State 
Chairs  of  the  Science  of  Religion,  which  teach 
what  Science  has  to  say  concerning  the  Ultimate 
and  our  relations  to  whatever  is  above,  on  our 
plane  or  below  us. 

The  Conditions  of  Membership. 

\.  Desire  for  more  light  along  religious  lines 
from  the  "Book  of  the  Universe." 

2.  Each  member  is  expected  to  try  to  help 
into  the  light  one  doubter  each  month. 

3.  That  you  either  give  yourself  to  or  help 
support  those  who  do  enter  upon  this  work. 

The  Alpha  degree  includes  all  those  who  assist 
in  this  work  by  five  dollars.  This  is  an  asso- 
ciate membership.  The  first  active  membership, 
the  Beta,  includes  all  those  who  assist  by  ten 
dollars.  The  Gamma  degree  includes  all  those 
who  assist  by  twenty-five  dollars,  and  so  on  by 
geometrical  ratio  of  increase  in  gifts  to  this 
work.  The  Omega  degree  includes  all  those  who 
give  themselves  to  it. 

By  sending  your  name  and  address  to  J.  G. 
Rodger,  Berkeley,  Calif.,  or  to  C.  C.  Pierce,  127 
West  Sixth  street,  Los  Angeles,  Calif.,  a  little 
booklet  on  this  subject  can  be  secured. 


DEDICATED 

To  people  who  think  sufficiently  to  question 
what  others  give  them 


uL 


PREFACE 

The  object  of  this  brochure  is  to  call  attention 
to  Human  Relations  and  the  Duties  growing  out 
of  them  as  discovered  by  scientific  investigation. 
Its  object  is  its  excuse,  and  its  method  of  pro- 
cedure and  results  will  have  to  be  its  justification 
or  its  condemnation.  Is  not  the  best  thought  to- 
day resting  on  scientific  data  and  folloiving  sci- 
entific methods? 


BEING 

Source  of  the  granite  and  the  rose, 
Soul  of  the  sparrow  and  the  bee ! 

The  mighty  tide  of  Being  flows 

Through  all  its  channels,  down,  from  Thee. 

Thy  glory  flames  in  stars  and  suns, 
It  springs  to  life  in  grass  and  flowers ; 

Through  every  grade  Thy  Being  runs 
And  racjiant  shines  in  human  towers. 


364622 


FOREWORD 

Modern  science  has  supplied  a  new  viewpoint  for  all  lines  of  inves- 
tigation in  the  various  fields  of  exploration.  The  view  once  prevail- 
ing that  this  earth  and  its  inhabitants,  man  included,  suddenly  came 
into  existence  (as  a  command)  a  few  thousand  years  ago  has  now 
few  and  still  fewer  defenders.  The  scientific  View  that  earth  with 
its  inhabitants,  man  included,  is  but  a  part  of  a  developing  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Ultimate,  is  facing  people  as  never  before.  Something 
without  a  source,  or  without  self-existence,  or  the  potentiality  of  what 
is,  is  unthinkable.  A  self-existent  something,  or  a  potentiality  of  what 
is,  with  a  beginning,  is  equally  unthinkable.  But  that  present  exist- 
ences are  a  developing  manifestation  in  which  earth  and  man  are  alike 
but  "parts  of  one  stupendous  whole,"  which,  potentially,  always  has 
been  in  the  Ultimate,  is  a  coeption  which  is  claiming  more  and  more 
the  consent  of  thoughtful  investigators. 

Can  we  have  a  Science  of  the  Ultimate?  It  has  been  said  that  such 
a  question  h  "impudent."  Some  consider  it  irreverent  if  not  sacrilegious. 
Still  the  question  will  not  down  by  such  answers.  Yet,  in  the  minds  of 
some,  there  seems  to  be  such  a  conflict  between  knowledge  gained  by 
observation  and  knowledge  gained  by  experience  and  tradition  that  they 
call  one  sacred  and  the  other  secular.  So  high  a  wall  has  been  built  and 
so  deep  a  moat  has  been  dug  between  these  two'  realms  of  knowledge 
that  he  who  would  learn  what  is  in  each  of  worth  to  humanity  must 
scale  the  wall  and  swim  the  moat  and  face  men  who  look  upon  him  as 
an  enemy  in  their  territory  when  he  scrambles  out  dripping,  dissheveled 
and  ill  at  ease.  So  true  is  this  that  even  some  whose  names  stand  high 
on  the  roll  of  scholars  and  educators  have  not  been  able  to  set  a  better 
example  to  the  world.  Those  on  one  side  say,  "We  are  not  to  blame, 
but  we  must  defend  the  truth."  Those  on  the  other  side  answer,  "We 
certainly  are  not  to  blame,  for  we  wish  to  find  out  what  is  the.  truth." 
Even  that  profound  investigator,  noble  man  and  beloved  teacher,  Profes- 
sor Agassiz,  was  considered  by  some  of  his  contemporaries  in  the  scientific 
field  as  a  Christian  and  by  some  theologians  as  an  infidel.  Let  us  rejoice 
that  there  have  been  men  too  large  to  be  limited  by  either  of  these  fields 
of  thought,  too  large  to  be  fully  understood  and  appreciated  by  men  who 
limit  themselves  to  either  of  these  realms  of  investigation  exclusively. 
Can  we  have  a  Science  of  the  Ultimate?  In  order  to  have  a  science  of 
an  object  or  being,  must  we  know  all  about  the  subject?  If  so,  have  we 
a  science  of  Astronomy  or  Geology  or  Botany?  But  if  to  have  sufficient 
data  of  an  object  to  enable  us  to  draw  one  positive  conclusion  be  to  have 
a  science  of  that  object,  what  then? 


A     SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


CHAPTER    I. 

A  science  of  any  object,  force  or  being  implies  three  things:  First, 
data  concerning  it,  then  classification  of  the  data,  and  logical  con- 
clusions therefrom.  One  of  the  great  axiomatic  scientific  data  of  to- 
day is  that  no  such  thing  exists  now  as  chaos  in  any  part  of  this  great 
universe.  The  scientific  Law  of  Continuity  of  Operations  drives  us 
to  the  conclusion  that  chaos  never  has  existed  in  any  part  of  this 
great  universe.  The  logical  conclusion  is  that  chaos  never  will  exist 
in  any  part  of  this  universe,  no  matter  what  strange  things  may  hap- 
pen. Chaos  is  an  obsolete  term,  the  valueless  coin  of  an  ancient  mis- 
conception. All  changes  today  are  cosmic.  The  great  universe  is  a 
grand  cosmos,  both  as  a  whole  and  in  every  part.  At  last  the  scientist 
sees  a  great  scientific  truth  in  the  Poet  Laureate's  lines : 
"Flower  in  the  crannied  wall, 

I  pluck  thee  out  of  the  cranny; 

If  I  but  knew  thee — what  thou  art, 

Root  and  branch, 

All  in  all  and  all  in  all, 

I  would  know  what  God  (The  Ultimate)  is." 
If  man  but  knew,  knew,  knew  any  part  of  this  great  universe, 
then  would  he  have  some  data  concerning  the  Ultimate  Source  of  it. 
Analysis  of  the  sun's  rays  shows  us  that  the  sun  contains  elements 
with  which  earth  has  made  us  acquainted.  Thus  to  know  concerning 
the  earth's  elements  is  to  know  something  concerning  the  sun.  So 
to  know  any  life  on  this  earth  thoroughly  is  to  have  some  data  con- 
cerning the  Ultimate  Source  of  this  universe  life. 

Man  the  Data. 

•  What  object  in  this  universe  is  of  most  interest  and  importance 
to  man?  The  almost  universal  answer  is  Man  and  his  environment. 
What  elements  in  the  human  are  most  important,  and  how  are  these 
elements  best  developed?  From  all  sides,  and"  by  men  in  all  lines  of 
investigation  and  work,  we  hear  the  growing  verdict:  "His  recogni- 
tion of  his  relations  and  the  performance  of  the  duties  growing  out  of 
those  relations." 

Today  we  are  studying  man  scientifically  to  find  out  his  charac- 
teristics and  those  of  his  environment.  With  this  data  we  are  asking 
what  must  his  ancestral  line  have  been,  and  the  Ultimate  Head  of  it. 
For  man,  then,  to  collect  data  concerning  himself  and  his  environ- 
ment is  to  collect  material  for  the  consideration  of  the  Ultimate.  For 
man  to  possess  such  data  classified  is  to  occupy  a  new  Viewpoint  for  the 
investigation  of  his  great  ancestral  line  and  the  relations  he  bears  to 
every   part  of  it. 

Lmless  this  universe — which  includes  not  only  star-dust  and  neb- 
ulae and  space,  not  merely  suns  and  solar  systems  with  their  planets 
and  moons,  not  merely  rock  and  water,  sand  and  soil,  not  merely  plant 
and  sensuous  animal,  not  merely  man  with  instinct  and  intuition  but 


A    SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


man,  rational,  personal,  capable  of  loving — is  self-existent  and  eternal, 
then  it  must  have  an  Ultimate  Source.  The  Ultimate  from  which  all 
these  have  come  must  possess  the  potentiality  of  them  all.  As  in  the 
development  of  an  animal  embryo  we  see  a  history  of  its  whole  ancestral 
line,  so  in  the  earth  life  we  have  at  least  a  partial  history  of  its  ancestry 
and  Ultimate  Source. 

Man  the  Investigator. 

Some  may  fear  that  this  change  of  Viewpoint  of  this  universe, 
man  included,  may  affect,  detrimentally,  man's  highest  development. 
When  he  sees  himself  part  of  a  developing  manifestation  of  the  "stu- 
pendous whole,"  will  he  not  think  himself  in  the  clutch  of  a  fatalism  in- 
surmountable? Will  he  not  loose  the  bonds  of  duty  and  leave  free 
rein  for  all  which  he  finds  he  can  do? 

While  some  relations  may  be  recognized  as  less  important  than 
before,  some  will  be  recognized  as  more  important.  May  we  not  rest 
assured  that  the  complement  of  duties  growing  out  of  those  relations 
will  be  improved  in  quality  if  not  in  quantity  and  the  consequent 
development  of  character  increased  rather  than  diminished,  and  the 
standard  of  life  elevated,  not  lowered?  Is  it  not  safe  to  follow 
truth  wherever  she  leads,  whether  in  paths  of  former  thinking  or  in 
newly  blazed  ways?  Clearer  conceptions  of  the  relations  of  things, 
a  fuller  grasp  of  them,  makes  for  freedom.  Truth  is  the  great  liber- 
ator. Instead  of  this  new  Viewpoint  working  detrimentally,  will  it 
not  prompt  him  to  fix  his  eyes  upon  himself  and  his  neighbor,  visible 
and  tangible  objects,  and  to  raise  the  question  in  him  as  never  before. 
"Whence?"  His  answer  to  this  question  comes  now  with  a  direct- 
ness and  emphasis  which  can  not  be  gainsaid  or  neglected,  tor  it 
brings  him  face  to  face  with  a  greater  though  invisible  reality,  pres- 
ent. Consequently,  to  know  man  and  his  universal  environment  more 
perfectly  is  to  know  more  of  The  Ultimate. 

Data  in  Matter. 

Scientific  data  touching  some  of  The  Ultimate's  characteristics — 
Have  we  any?  Is  it  not  a  scientific  axiom  that  whatever  exists  is 
either  self-existent  and  eternal,  or  that  it  has  come  ultimately  from 
such  a  source?  Is  not  self-creation  an  absurdity?  If  nothing  comes 
from  nothing,  is  there  any  such  thing  as  self-creation  ?  Even  time 
and  space  do  not  reproduce  themselves.  Can  you  conceive  of  space 
where  no  being  is?  Can  you  conceive  of  time  where  no  being  is? 
If  you  can  not,  may  not  time  and  space  be  considered  characteristics 
of  some  form  of  existence?  If  nothing  can  not  be  the  parent  of  some- 
thing, then  whatever  is  must  have  an  Ultimate  parenthood  in  some 
self-existent,  eternal  potentiality.  Whatever  characteristics  we  see  in 
this  present  universal  environment,  then,  must  represent  some  of  the 
characteristics  of  this  Ultimate  Parent.  Let  us  select  a  few  of  the 
characteristics  of  this  universe. 


A     SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


Space  and  Time. 

As  we  look  around  we  become  conscious  of  an  element  we  call 
space.  We  do  not  occupy  all  of  it.  We  do  occupy  a  part  of  it.  We 
recognize  ourselves  as  in  space,  not  of  it,  but  occupying  part  of  it. 
In  a  certain  sense,  to  occupy  space  is  one  of  our  physical  character- 
istics. In  a  certain  sense,  if  there  were  no  physical  objects  to  occupy 
space  there  would  be  no  space.  The  only  way  we  can  recognize 
boundless  space  is  in  our  imagination  to  project  far,  far  away,  imag- 
inary boundaries.  As  I  study  my  own  existence  I  become  conscious 
that  I  am  not  only  in  space,  but  also  in  what  is  called  time.  I  occupy 
in  this  state  a  part  of  duration.'  When  I  ask  myself  how  much  time  I 
occupy,  and  try  to-  get  back  to  the  beginning  of  time  or  to  look  for- 
ward to  the  end  of  it,  I  see  no  beginning  nor  ending.  Scientifically, 
these  elements  of  existence  we  call  space  and  time  are  boundless,  or,  if 
they  have  bounds,  then  they  are  existences  in  a  larger  time  and  space. 
So  back  and  back,  test  on  test,  till  we  come  to  the  boundless  time  and 
space  which  are  elements  of  the  Ultimate  Source. 

Elemental  Substances. 

Again,  as  we  look  around,  we  recognize  air,  in  which  are  ele- 
ments we  call  oxygen  and  nitrogen.  We  also  see  water,  in  which  are 
oxygen  and  hydrogen.  If  we  ask  the  scientist  what  is  oxygen  or 
nitrogen  or  hydrogen,  and  the  many  other  elements  we  see  in  rock, 
sand,  soil,  he  will  answer:  Oxygen  exhibits  such  and  such  character- 
istics, hydrogen  exhibits  these  other  characteristics.  But  what  is 
each  of  these,  not  how  do  you  distinguish  between  them?  What  are 
these  objects,  existences,  you  call  elemental  substances?  He  will  an- 
swer: We  know  these. only  as  contrasted  with  each  other.  Farther 
than  this  the  scientist  gives  us  no  data  as  to  the  what  of  elemental 
substances.  If  you  ask  the  scientist  when  these  strange  elements 
came  into  existence  he  will  answer:  We  have  no  scientific  data  as  to 
when  they  came  into  existence.  Has  oxygen  on  this  earth  a  begin- 
ning? Only  in  the  sense  that  this  earth  has  a  beginning,  a  separa- 
tion of  existence  from  the  sun  and  the  solar  system.  If  this  earth  is 
simply  a  part  of  the-  solar  system,  then  earth-elements  must  be  in  the 
sun.  Had  oxygen,  hydrogen  and  nitrogen  in  the  sun  a  beginning? 
Only  in  the  sense  that  the  solar  system  has  a  beginning,  a  separation 
of  existence  from  the  great  universal  nebulae,  these  elements  in  the 
sun  must  have  been  potentially,  in  the  universal  nebulae.  Did  oxy- 
gen and  nitrogen  have  a  beginning  in  the  universal  nebulae?  Only  in 
the  sense  that  the  universal  nebulae  had  a  beginning  in  the  great 
Ultimate  Source  of  this  universe. 

Potentiality  of  What  Is. 

What  do  you  mean  by  the  Ultimate  Source  of  this  universe,  or 
the  Ultimate?  We  mean  that  eternal,  self-existent  potency  of  oxygen, 
hydrogen  and  nitrogen,  and  of  the  material  elements  so-called,  for 
whatever  is   must  be   either  self-existent  and   eternal   or  come   from 


A     SCIENCE    OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


something  preceding  it.  Trace  anything  back  and  back,  do  you  not 
sooner  or  later  find  the  only  stopping  place  is  a  self-existence  which 
always  has  been?  If  it  has  not  always  existed,  and  has  no  something 
preceding,  then  there  must  have  been  a  point  in  time  as  we  go  back  when 
time  and  space  had  nothing  in  them,  and  also  time  and  space  were  not. 
Later,  from  this  nothingness  appeared  the  first  something  with  time  and 
space  as  its  characteristics,  which  is  contrary  to  the  scientific  principle. 
Every  effect  has  a  cause  adequate  to  the  effect.  So  hydrogen,  nitrogen 
and  the  other  so-called  material  elements  must  have  been  potentially 
eternal  in  the  Ultimate. 

CHAPTER    II. 

DATA    IN    LIFE. 

Again,  as  we  continue  to  examine  our  environment,  we  see  what 
we  call  a  plant.  What  is  a  plant?  A  plant  is  a  material  organism 
living  and  developing,  is  it  not?  It  takes  up  its  nourishment  from 
soil,  atmosphere  and  sunshine,  and  builds  of  these  elements  its  plant 
body.  It  builds  itself?  What  do  you  mean?  Is  the  material  organ- 
ism the  worker?  The  life  in  the  plant  does  the  work.  But  what  is 
life?  Had  you  asked  this  question  a  few  years  ago  the  scientist  would 
have  answered  "Life  is  the  function  of  organism,"  but  today  he  is 
compelled  to  answer:  "Life  is  not  only  the  builder  of  organism,  but 
life-energy  is  the  generator  in  matter  of  organization.  What  caused 
him  to  change  his  definition  of  life? 

Life  Then  Organism. 

A  few  years  ago,  when  we  thought  of  •  life  as  the  function  of 
organism,  our  attention  was  called,  in  the  study  of  embryology,  to 
phenomena  presented  by  two  embryos.  The  two  embryos  in  ques- 
tion were  so  nearly  alike  that  under  the  strongest  microscope  we 
could  not  distinguish  any  perceptible  difference.  There  was  not  a 
streak  in  one  which  was  not  in  the  other.  The  nuclei  looked  identi- 
cally alike.  Had  you  blindfolded  the  operator  and  changed  their 
places  he  could  not  have  asserted  that  you  had  done  so.  But  let  one 
of  these  embryos  develop — it  becomes  a  horizontal,  four-footed  ani- 
mal. Let  the  other  develop — it  becomes  an  erect,  two-footed  being. 
Why  does  one  of  these  embryos  develop  into  a  dog,  the  other  into  a 
child?  Why?  I  know  of  no  better  scientific  answer  than:  Because 
the  life-energy  in  the  one  embryo  could  best  express  itself  in  a  hori- 
zontal, four-footed  body,  while  the  life-energy  in  the  other  could  best 
express  itself  in  an  erect  two-footed  body  looking  upward.  One  life- 
worker  wanted  the  body  of  a  dog  in  which  to  live ;  the  other  needed 
the  body  of  a  man.  You  asked  me  what  life  is :  Is  life  a  function  of 
organism,  or  is  life  the  generator  and  builder  of  organism?  Organism 
does  not  precede  life  and  make  life,  but  life  precedes  organism,  gen- 
erates it  and  builds,  suiting  its  edifice  to  its  kind  of  life-energy. 

You  say  life  is  the  worker,  the  builder  of  organism?     Well,  then, 


A     SCIENCE     OF     THE     ULTIMATE 


Whence  Is  Life? 

Let  Professor  Huxley  in  that  famous  Belfast  address  answer:  "I 
see  in  matter  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  of  life." 

What  did  he  mean?  I  know  of  no  fairer  answer,  in  lieu  of  his 
own  declaration,  than  his  scientific  efforts.  Previous  to  this  utter- 
ance, not  only  Professor  Huxley  but  many  other  biologists  of  note 
had  been  experimenting  with  matter  to  get  data  along  the  line  of  the 
origin  of  life.  The  hay  infusion  experiments  are  a  fair  sample  of  the 
whole  class.  The  effort  was  to  eliminate  all  germs  of  life  from  ele- 
mental material  substances  used,  and  then  to  watch  and  see  if  some 
form  of  life  would  not  still  manifest  itself.  In  the  case  of  the  hay 
infusions  the  wisps  of  hay  were  baked  in  an  oven  at  a  temperature 
which  was  supposed  to  destroy  all  germs  of  life.  The  water  in  which 
the  wisps  were  immersed  was  boiled  at  a  temperature  which  was 
supposed  to  kill  all  germs  of  life  in  the  water.  This  combination  was 
then  hermetically  sealed  and  placed  on  laboratory  shelf  and  daily 
examined. 

Life  from  Matter? 

After  several  fruitless  efforts  he  got,  as  he  supposed,  an  organ- 
ism. It  was  then  that  biologists  declared :  "We  see  in  matter  the 
promise  and  potency  of  every  form  of  life."  What  did  he  mean? 
Let  every  man  draw  his  own  conclusions.  In  view  of  the  efforts  to 
eliminate  all  life  germs,  and  to  retain  only  what  might  have  been 
denominated  dead  elements,  what  did  he  mean.  Did  he  not  mean  that 
he  saw  a  living  principle  dwelling  in  matter  an  unliving  element,  or 
that  the  so-called  dead  material  elements  were  possessed  of  the  poten- 
tiality of  organizing  themselves  into  living  organisms,  were  capable 
of  producing  life  even  though  they  were  not  living? 

A  subsequent  utterance  also  confirms  me  in  this  conclusion. 
Continuing  his  experimentations  with  several  precautions  to  insure 
tfie  destruction  of  germs  in  the  elements  used,  he  found  no  such 
appearances  of  life  as  he  had  before  seen,  and  concluded  that  in  the 
former  experiments  germs  of  life  had  been  left,  either  on  the  hay  or 
in  the  water.  Pie  then  frankly  admitted :  "We  have  no  scientific 
data  for  saying  that  life  can  come  from  anything  less  than  life."  In 
the  light  of  what  biologists  were  experimenting  upon,  namely:  Ma- 
terial elements  devoid  of  life  germs,  what  did  they  mean  by  this  first 
utterance :  "We  see  in  matter  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form 
of  life?"  Did  they  not  mean  that  material  elements  devoid  of  life 
germs  possess  the  potentiality  of  all  life?  Whence  then  this  plant? 
According  to  that  utterance,  from  matter  is  it  not?  Not  from  a  life 
dwelling  in  a  material  substance,  imminent  in  material  elements. 
Not  that,  but  from  these  material  elements  devoid  of  all  life  germs. 
His  first  statement  meant  there  is  only  one  element  essential  to  life 
and  that  element  we  call  matter.  That  the  first  and  lowest  earth 
life  was  the  offspring  of  this  inorganic  matter  devoid  of  germs.  That 
the  next  higher  species  of  earth  life  was  the  offspring  of  the  first  species 
and   its  environing  forces  and   laws ;  that  the  third  higher  species   was 


A     SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


the  offspring  of  the  second  and  its  environing  material  energies  operat- 
ing according  to  laws,  and  so  on  up  the  rising  series  of  earth  life  to  the 
highest,  even  man.  Each  higher  species  was  the  child,  so  to  speak,  of 
the  preceding  species  and  the  environing  forces  operating  according  to 
laws.  In  other  words,  according  to  this  first  utterance,  all  life  on  this 
earth,  man  included,  comes  from  a! material  Ultimate.  v 

V 
Life  Distinct  from  Matter. 

What  did  they  mean  by  this  second  utterance?  Was  it  not  that 
material  substance  must  be  accompanied  by  the  life-principle  or  it 
can  not  organize?  In  other  words,  was  not  this  second  statement  the 
recognition  of  two  essential  elements,  matter  and  life-energy?  Did 
they  not  recognize  that  wherever  these  life  germs  were  not  found, 
they  had  no  scientific  data  for  saying  that  the  potentiality  of  life  did 
exist?  In  the  light  of  this  second  utterance,  can  we  ever  admit  that 
the  first  utterance  can  ever  be  used  with  the  broad  meaning  that 
material  elements  are  also  living?  With  these  two  utterances  before 
us,  can  we  refine  matter,  endowing  it  with  life-potentiality?  Are  we 
not  driven  to  recognize  the  life-generating  principle  as  distinct  from 
the  organism,  material,  substance,  or  whatever  it  may  be  called? 

Moreover,  are  we  not  just  as  impotent  to  get  life  out  of  material 
elements  alone  today  as  we  have  ever  been?  Should  any  biologist 
today  succeed  in  so  re-arranging  and  recombining  material  elements 
that  an  organism  is  the  result,  who  is  the  parent  of  that  organism?  Is  it 
matter  devoid  of  germs,  operated  upon  by  its  environing  forces  work- 
ing according  to  laws — are  these  the  parents  of  that  organism  ?  Must 
■we  not  include  with  all  these  the  Professor's  thought,  planning  and 
experimentation?  In  other  words,  has  not  such  a  life  a  source  of 
life,  even  the  professor's? 

Whence  then  this  plant?  In  view  of  what  has  been  said  of  a  pre- 
ceding germ  or  life?  But  a  germ  of  life  is  scientific  evidence  of  a 
preceding  life.  Whence  then?  From  a  preceding  life  is  it  not?  But 
whence  that  life?  From  one  still  preceding  and  so  back  until  we 
reach  the  first  earth  plant.     Whence  it? 

CHAPTER  III. 
MATERIAL  GERM  OR  ENERGY  GERM. 

Whence  is  earth  life?    Whence  came  it  originally? 

From  a  germ  of  life,  did  it  not?  Here  we  are  faced  by  two  theories. 
The  material  organism  germ  and  the  life  energy  germ.  By  a  ma- 
terial organism  germ  is  meant  that  a  germ  of  life  floated  to  earth  from 
some  other  planet  on  which  was  life. 

By  the  life-energy  germ  is  meant  that  the  great  Universal  life 
energy  shot  a  ray  of  life  energy  into  the  sand,  and  Mother  Earth  con- 
ceived and  brought  forth  the  first  life. 

In  examining  these  two  theories  carefully,  are  we  not  driven  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  first  has  no  scientific  basis  in  the  solution  of  our 


A     SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


present  problem?  Suppose  the  first  earth  life  was  the  result  of  a  stray 
germ  of  life  from  some  other  planet,  floating  in  space.  Whence  the 
first  life  germ  on  that  planet?  Whence  the  first  plant  germ  on  the 
first  planet  in  this  great  Universe?  Are  we  not  driven  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  first  material  life  organism  in  this  universe  must  have 
been  begotten  by  the  great  universal  life  energy  on  some  part  of  uni- 
versal matter,  developed  to  the  state  of  sustaining  life?  Must  not  this 
great  universal  life  energy  have  shot  a  ray  of  life  energy  into  some  part 
of  universal  matter,  and  lo,  a  conception  just  as  wonderful  as  any 
conception  to-day.  Scientifically  considered,  I  do  not  see  how  we  can 
get  around  the  conclusion  that  the  first  plant  life  in  the  universe  must 
have  come  ultimately  from  the  life  energy  germ.  A  material  organism 
plant  germ  is  scientific  evidence  that  a  plant  has  existed  somewhere, 
at  some  time,  or  that  a  life  energy  capable  of  producing  it  has  existed. 
Scientifically  we  know  that  there  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  this 
earth  when  no  plant  life  existed.  Wre  know  also,  if  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis be  true,  there  was  a  time  when  there  were  no  planets  in  this 
universe,  and  consequently  no  plant  life  anywhere  in  this  universe. 

Mother  Earth  Conception. 

Whence  the  first  germ  of  plant  life?  Was  it  not  the  result  of  a 
conception  by  mother  matter  in  the  embrace  of  father  Universal  Life- 
Energy?  Was  the  source  of  life  as  high  as  the  germ?  Can  you  con- 
ceive of  anything  begotten  being  higher  than  the  parent,  or  anything 
emanated  higher  than  the  emanating  source,  or  anything  formed  higher 
than  the  former?    Does  not  the  question  answer  itself? 

As  we  continue  to  examine  our  environment  we  note  a  wonderful 
series  of  plant  life,  families,  genera,  species  from  protoplasm  to  peach. 
What  causes  this  rising  grade  of  plant  life?  Is  it  primitive  life  un- 
folding, developing,  or  is  it  more  life  added,  begotten  ? 

The  Unknown  Increment. 

Let  Mr.  Darwin  answer  this  question,  than  whom  of  his  time  no  one 
was  better  able.  Mr.  Darwin  says,  briefly  expressed,  that  in  his  study 
of  a  higher  species  he  notes  at  least  three  elements,  which  constitute 
the  parent  of  the.  new  species.  First.  The  lower  species  of  life.  Sec- 
ond. The  environing  forces  operating  according  to  laws.  Third.  What 
may  be  termed  the  unknown  increment  of  life  energy. 

In  every  new  plant  species,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  there  is 
a  change  so  great  that  the  parent  lower  species  and  the  environing 
forces,  operating  according  to  laws,  do  not  fully  account  for  it.  In 
each  new  species  there  is  manifest  the  workings  of  an  unknown  incre- 
ment of  life  energy.  This  unknown  increment  is  manifest  step  by 
ste'p  to  the  highest  plant  species  of  the  series.  This  is  the  admission 
also  of  other  scientific  authorities.  Mr.  Wallace  gives  testimony  to 
the  same  conclusion  after  he  has  reached  a  certain  point  in  the  series 
of  life  seen  on  this  earth. 


10  A     SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 

Electrical  Data. 

The  chief  electrician  at  Schenectady,  N.  Y.,  of  the  great  American 
Electrical  Company's  manufacturing  plant,  for  whom  the  company 
has  built  a  private  laboratory  where  he  may  pursue  original  electrical 
experimentations,  said  to  the  author,  in  answer  to  the  question :  "Have 
you  been  led  to  the  conclusion,  by  your  investigations  in  electricity, 
as  some  scientists  claim  they  have  been  led,  that  electricity  is  the 
basis  of  all  earth  life?"  Looking  down  thoughtfully  for  a  moment,  as 
if  to  prepare  to  give  a  careful  answer,  he  said :  "So  far  as  my  experi- 
mentations have  brought  me  scientific  data  to  lead  me  to  that  conclu- 
sion, I  have  n6ne.  We  can  take  a  small  organism,  plant  or  animal, 
dissect  it  and  analyze  it  down  to  its  elements.  We  can  measure  and 
weigh  those  elements ;  we  can  have  them  all  collected  in  our  laboratory 
within  reach,  but  we  are  just  as  impotent  to  recombine  them  into  life 
by  electricity  as  ever.  Doubtless  electrical  energy  is  a  part  of  life 
energy,  an  element  in  it,  but  that  electrical  energy  is  the  whole  of  life, 
is  life,  and  can  alone  be  transmuted  into  life,  I  have  no  scientific  data 
for  asserting." 

What  now  and  whence  is  this  unknown  increment  of  life  recognized 
by  the  authorities  in  scientific  investigation?  Must  it  not  have  come 
ultimately,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  from  the  Great  Ultimate  of  the 
Universe  ? 

An  Ultimate  Center  of  Convergence. 

Things  we  see  around  us  have  not  always  existed  as  they  are  now. 
But  we  recognize  that  they  have  come  from  something  preceding 
them,  either  by  a  process  of  creation,  evolution  or  emanation.  We 
recognize  too  as  we  go  back  on  the  lines  of  scientific  investigation 
that  these  objects,  forces,  existences,  converge  and  converge,  are 
reducible  to  fewer  and  still  fewer  elements,  until  as  we  look 
at  that  ultimate  center  of  convergence  through  the  astronomer's 
telescope  and  the  microscopist's  glass  and  the  chemist's  crucible  and 
the  electrician's  volt,  we  find  there  in  that  Ultimate  Center  not  only 
the  potentiality  of  all  objects,  forces  and  laws  which  preceded  life  on 
this  earth,  but  also  the  potentiality  of  the  first  life  on  this  earth.  An 
equally  important  point  for  us  to  note  is  this,  that  we  fail  to  find  in 
the  earth  objects  and  elements  as  we  go  back  in  this  investigation 
scientific  data  for  concluding  that  the  life  element  was  here  in  this 
earth  prior  to  a  certain  stage  of  development.  Should  we  not  conclude 
then  that  this  ultimate  center  is  not  matter  alone  nor  life  alone,  but 
that  this  Ultimate  Center  possesses  the  potentiality  of  matter  and  of  life? 
Are  we  not  turned  then  toward  the  conclusion  that  not  only  the 
first  life  on  this  earth  was  from  this  Ultimate  of  life  directly 
or  indirectly,  but  also  that  this  unknown  increment  recognized  by 
biologist  and  electrician  alike  is  also  from  that  same  Ultimate  Source, 
either  directly  or  indirectly? 

Active  and  Passive  Elements. 
Are  we  not  face  to  face  in  plant  fife  with  what  we  must  have  noted 


A     SCIENCE    OF    THE    ULTIMATE       .  11 

before  in  lower  organisms,  viz.,  what  might  be  termed  an  active  ele- 
ment and  a  passive  element?  In  the  block  of  rock  there  are  the  passive 
quartz,  feldspar,  mica  and  then  the  active  cohesive  force  or  forces 
which  hold  these  together  and  constitute  them  the  solid  block  of 
granite  or  whatever  species  of  rock  it  may  be.  In  the  globule  of 
water  there  are  the  passive  elements  of  H.  and  O,  then  the  active 
chemical  energy  which  combines  them  and  transforms  them  by  the 
combination  into  the  watery  fluid.  So  in  the  plant  we  see  a  worker, 
an  active  energy,  and  a  worked  upon  or  passive  material  elements 
which  it  fashions  into  a  plant  organism.  But  more,  do  we  not  see  in 
the  first  plant  an  organism  which  though  living  is  passive  in  com- 
parison to  an  unknown  increment  of  working  energy  which  infuses 
itself  into  the  passive  organism  and  expands  it  into  a  plant  organism 
of  so  much  greater  complexity  as  to  make  it  a  new  species?  Have  we 
any  scientific  data  that  any  change  in  a  plant  organism  making  it  more 
complex  ever  took  place  except  as  a  higher  grade  of  life  entered  in, 
ab  extra,  working  the  change?  As  we  continue  to  examine  our  en- 
vironment we  notice  next  (after  material  elements  O.  and  H.,  etc.,  and 
plant  life,  organizing  energy  on  the  life  plane  but  unconscious  and 
unsensuous)  sensuous  life  in  the  animal  (capacity  to  feel  pain  and 
pleasure).  Whence  this  higher  grade  or  quality  of  life?  Is  it  a  devel- 
opment from  unsensuous  life  by  the  operation  of  environing  forces? 
If  it  is  would  we  not  have  nothing  producing  something?  Can  two 
or  more  unsensuous  energies  produce  sensuousness? 

Mr.  Darwin  says  in  substance  we  have  here  a  manifestation  of  an 
unknown  increment  of  life.  Is  not  the  only  conclusion  we  can  reach 
that  this  unknown  increment  of  sensuousness  is  from  a  sensuous  life 
element  in  the  Ultimate  potentiality  of  this  universe,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly? If  nothing  cannot  produce  something  then  is  it  reasonable  to 
affirm  that  one  or  any  number  of  unsensuous  elements  or  forces  can 
produce  sensuousness?  Must  we  not  conclude  that  sensuousness  in 
animals  must  have  come  ultimately  from  a  sensuous  source,  directly 
or  indirectly,  or  from  an  ultimate  source  possessing  the  potentiality  of 
sensuousness,  which  is  virtually  the  same? 

As  we  examine  the  animal  still  further  we  find  that  it  possesses  a 
degree  of  life  we  denominate  instinct.  By  virtue  of  this  capacity  or 
degree  of  life  it  performs  feats  of  self  preservation  and  nourishment 
which  even  man  by  his  reason  cannot  surpass. 

Whence  now  this  higher  degree  of  life?  Can  it  have  come  from  or 
been  produced  by  unconscious,  unsensuous  force  or  forces,  any  num- 
ber of  them,  alone?  Can  even  sensuous  life  energy  of  itself  or  com- 
bined with  any  energy  lower  produce  it?  If  they  could  would  we  not 
have  a  case  of  nothing  producing  something,  viz..  an  energy  lacking 
instinct  producing  an  energy  possessing  instinct? 

What  is  instinct?  What  is  oxygen?  Is  it  not  a  manifestation  in 
time  and  space  and  substance  of  the  ultimate  potentiality  of  this  uni- 
verse? In  that  potentiality  of  this  universe  has  not  oxygen  been  so 
long  as  that  potentiality  has  existed?  And  if  the  direct  potentiality 
of  this  universe  be  not  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  then  is  not  the  direct 


12  A     SCIENCE     OF    THE     ULTIMATE 


dependent  on  the  Ultimate  and  thus  eternal  in  the  Ultimate  Poten- 
tiality? Does  not  self  existence  imply  that  the  potentiality  of  the 
object  has  always  been  and  that  it  is  a  part,  a  manifestation,  of  the 
Ultimate?  Consequently,  can  there  be  any  such  thing  as  several  inde- 
pendent and  self  existent  origins  and  potentialities,  as,  for  exa-rcple, 
time  and  space  and  substance,  unsensuous  energy  and  unconscious  life 
and  instinct?  Is  not  this  universe  a  oneness?  Are  not  all  these  simply 
elements  in  this  universal  oneness?  Must  there  not  then  be  a  uni- 
versal Ultimate  Potentiality  from  which  all  these  secondary  potential- 
ities have  emanated,  upon  which  they  are  all  dependent? 

What  Is  Water? 

Is  it  not  a  manifestation  in  time  and  space  of  at  least  three  elements 
of  the  Ultimate  Potentiality,  oxygen  and  hydrogen  and  chemical  affin- 
ity, for  example?  In  other  words,  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  has  drawn 
together  two  elements  by  a  third,  and  lo,  Water !  a  manifestation  of  the 
Ultimate  Potentiality,  or  Water. 

What  is  a  Rose?  A  manifestation  in  time  and  space  of  several  ele- 
ments of  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  organized  into  a  living  organism 
by  another  element  of  the  Ultimate,  we  call  it  life  energy.  Lo,  the 
Rose !  Does  not  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  draw  from  the  soil  by  rose 
rootlets,  from  atmosphere  and  sunlight  by  its  branches  and  leaves 
nourishment  for  its  construction?  Does  not  the  Ultimate  Potentiality 
select  for  it  and  through  it  the  needed  elements  of  nourishment  and 
reject  elements  not  needed? 

What  is  an  Animal?  An  Animal  is  a  manifestation  in  time  and  space 
of  several  material  elements  of  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  combined  into 
a  living  sensuous  organism  by  another  Ultimate  element,  sensuous  life 
energy.  Now,  this  sensuous  organism  which  we  call  an  Animal  exhibits 
a  wonderful  characteristic  we  call  Instinct. 

What  is  Instinct?  Is  it  not  the  Ultimate  Potentiality,  manifest  in 
the  animal  organism  directing  the  animal  to  choose  what  is  for  its 
good  and  to  shun  what  is  injurious?  If  that  capacity  in  the  animal 
enables  it  or  some  potentiality  through  it  to  perform  feats  which  man 
cannot  surpass  by  his  rational  calculation  and  forethought,  what 
would  you  conclude  was  the  nature  of  that  Potentiality? 

CHAPTER    IV. 

DATA    OF    INTUITION. 

As  we  continue  the  examination  of  our  environment  we  observe  a 
capacity  in  the  human  which  we  call  Intuition.  With  what  data  does  it 
supply  us  concerning  the  Ultimate?  In  the  last  chapter  we  reached  the 
data  supplied  by  Instinct  in  the  animal.  Instead  of  discussing  it  with 
you,  I  left  you  with  this  question  to  consider,  "If  that  capacity  in  the 
animal  which  we  call  instinct  enables  it  to  perform  feats  of  self-preser- 
vation, development,  nourishment  and  discrimination  which  even  human 
reason  cannot  surpass,  is  it  not  a  manifestation  of  mind  in  the  Ultimate 


ASCI  ENCE    OF    THE    ULTIMATE  13 

Potentiality,  working  in  the  animal  organism  involuntarily?  As  the 
involuntary  activity  of  lungs,  stomach  and  heart  is  the  Ultimate  life 
potentiality  working  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  animal  organism,  so  is 
not  the  involuntary  activity  called  instinct  the  Ultimate  instinct  poten- 
tiality working  in  the  animal  brain  organism  directly  or  indirectly?  Does 
it  matter,  then,  as  to  the  validity  of  the  evidence  whether  the  Ultimate 
Potentiality  be  working  directly  or  indirectly?  What  would  be  scientific 
evidence  of  rationality  in  the  Ultimate?  Can  anything  less  than  ration- 
ality in  the  Ultimate  effect  consequences  equal  to  the  rational?  Does 
not  the  great  law  of  attraction  and  repulsion,  motion,  mind,  rest  on  the 
universal  principle,  an  adequate  cause  for  every  effect?  Can  anything 
less  than  mind  be  an  adequate  cause  for  rational  effects?  Can  anything 
less  than  the  capacity  to  observe,  compare  and  draw  conclusions  some- 
where be  the  adequate  cause  of  effects  which  involve  such  involuntary 
activity  here? 

What  now  is  intuition?  Is  it  not  to  the  man  what  instinct  is  to  the 
animal,  an  involuntary  choosing  activity?  If  so,  what  data  does  it  bring 
us  concerning  the  Ultimate  Potentiality?  If  intuition  in  the  man  be  the 
Ultimate  directing  the  man  involuntarily,  then  has  not  the  Ultimate  the 
power  of  discernment?  If  intuition  be  not  the  Ultimate  directing  the 
man,  then  what  is  it?  You  say  nature?  What  is  nature?  A  something 
without  man,  or  something  within  man,  or  both?  If  both,  then  nature 
is  but  this  universe,  which  includes  all  the  substances,  forces,  laws,  life, 
which  exist,  man  included.  Whence  this  universe?  ''It  always  has  been." 
In  its  present  form?  "No,  but  in  some  form,  entity  or  potentiality." 
Very  well,  then,  that  form,  entity  or  potentiality  of  this  universe  as  far 
back  in  this  universal  existence  as  man  can  go  in  thought  let  us  call  the 
Ultimate  Potentiality  of  this  universe.  Whence  man's  intuition?  From 
the  Ultimate  Potentiality,  is  it  not?  If  so,  must  not  the  Ultimate  dis- 
criminate between  means  for  ends,  between  causes  for  effects? 

Is,  then,  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  of  human  intuition  conscious  and 
directing  the  human  through  this  capacity,  or  is  the  Ultimate  Potentiality 
of  human  intuition  unconscious  and  automatically  directing  the  human 
through  this  capacity  of  intuition?  In  other  words,  is  the  Ultimate,  this 
universe  and  more,  even  conscious  being,  or  is  this  universe  all  and  just 
coming  to  consciousness  on  this  earth  in  man?  Is  intuition  the  Ultimate 
living  in  man  only,  or  transcending  man  also? 

As  we  proceed  with  the  examination  of  our  environment  we  find  in 
man  another  set  of  capacities.  We  find  him  observing  objects,  comparing 
them  and  drawing  conclusions.  For  convenience  let  us  term  the  whole 
process  reasoning.     Man  is  a  reasoning  being. 

Has  the  human  always  possessed  this  capacity — rather  this  group  of 
capacities  ?  '  The  possession  of  this  capacity  is  part  of  the  human  char- 
acteristics, is  it  not?  To  say  that  the  human  has  not  always  possessed 
it  is  equivalent  to  saying  the  human  has  not  always  been  human.  If  we 
ask,  has  this  capacity  in  the  human  always  been  developed  to  the  extent 
we  see  it  in  man  today?  we  are  face  to  face  with  another  proposition. 
How  has  this  latent  capacity  in  man  been  developed  to  its  present  degree 


14  A    SCIENCE    OF    THE     ULTIMATE 

as  seen  in  man?  Suppose  we  admit  that  these  latent  capacities  have 
developed  by  man's  contact  with  the  objects  of  his  environment,  his 
experience  with  them  and  the  knowledge  thus  gained  of  their  working 
and  the  laws  by  which  they  are  operated.  We  are  still  left  with  the 
question,  whence  those  latent  capacities?  Is  not  the  Ultimate  Poten- 
tiality of  those  latent  rational  capacities  rational?  Does  the  indirect 
development  of  them  modify  the  necessity  of  our  recognizing  the  fact  of 
Ultimate  Potential  Reason  to  account  for  capacities  producing  reason? 
Exercise  of  muscle  rightly  developed  makes  it  stronger,  but  exercise  of 
mud  does  not  make  muscle.  It  makes  dust.  Exercise  of  the  capacities 
to  observe,  compare  and  draw  conclusions  makes  reason,  but  you  must 
have  the  capacities  to  exercise.  The  Ultimate  Potentiality  of  these  must 
possess  these  elements,  for  the  exercise  of  the  sensuous  (capacity  to  feel 
pain)  does  not  give  reason,  it  produces  pain.  Something  more  must  be 
added  to  the  pain,  an  "unknown  increment  of  life,"  before  the  pain 
organism  be  developed  so  as  to  observe  rationally.  Consequently  the 
scientific  data  supplied  by  man's  capacity  to  reason  leads  us,  does  it  not? 
to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  man's  Ultimate  Potentiality  must  also 
possess  this  same  capacity  or  a  capacity  which  includes  reason  ?  • 

The  human  guided  by  intuition  is  a  living  machine  running  in  the 
groove  of  universal  forces  operating  according  to  universal  laws,  as  is 
the  animal  guided  by  instinct.  These  self-existent,  universal  substance 
elements  and  force  elements  and  law,  life  and  reason  elements  are  at 
least  parts  of  the  Ultimate  Potentiality.  Said  intuitional  guidance  in  the 
human  reaches  not  merely  his  physical  being,  as  in  the  case  of  the  animal, 
but  also  his  moral  and  spiritual  natures.  He  discerns  great  relations  in 
life,  or  truths,  when  in  this  condition,  by  simply  opening  his  nature  to 
the  inflow  of  truth  either  as  to  his  physical  or  moral  nature.  But  when 
he  began  to  observe,  compare  and  draw  conclusions,  he  ceased  to  be 
guided  by  the  Ultimate  and  began  to  be  self-directed,  or  guided  by 
reason. 

Since  now  the  human  exhibits  self-direction  within  certain  limits, 
must  not  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  of  this  universe  possess  this  element 
of  existence  also?  Can  the  Ultimate's  self-direction  be  less  in  quality  or 
quantity  than  the  human  aggregate,  than  the  aggregate  of  finite  intelli- 
gences wherever  found  in  this  great  universe?  Does  not,  then,  the  Ulti- 
mate choose,  will? 

As  we  continue  to  examine  our  environment  for  data  touching  our 
question,  "What  must  the  Ultimate  of  this  universe  be?"  we  find  our- 
selves face  to  face  with  another  set  of  phenomena — human  consciousness 
of  self,  of  individuality,  of  responsibility.  Man  asserts  unhesitatingly, 
"/  am,  I  am  distinct  from  every  other  man,  an  individual.  I  ought  to 
do  this  rather  than  the  other,  responsibility."  If,  now,  this  characteristic 
of  self-consciousness,  this  conscious  energy,  this  entity  of  selfness,  be 
here,  must  it  not  be  in  the  Ultimate  also? 

In  the  human  we  are  accustomed  to  associate  with  consciousness  of 
self,  of  individuality,  of  responsibility,  that  human  characteristic  we  call 
personality.     In  the  human  it  is  by  no  means  an  unimportant  element, 


A     SCIENCE    OF    THE     ULTIMATE  15 

characteristic,  energy,  entity.  So  important  is  it  that  we  recognize  it  as 
the  main.  A  man  with  no  personality  is  no  man.  A  man  with  a  strong 
personality,  consciousness  of  self,  of  individuality  and  of  responsibility, 
is  usually  a  strong  man  along  some  line.  A  man  with  a  weak  conscious- 
ness is  not  usually  a  strong  man  in  any  respect.  Can  an  element  so 
important  in  the  man  be  absent  in  the  Ultimate  Potentiality  of  this 
universe?  Is  not  this  element  of  personal  consciousness  coupled  with 
ability  to  choose,  to  will,  the  greatest  energy  in  this  universe,  even  all- 
creative  ? 

As  we  continue  our  explorations  of  our  universal  environment  in 
search  of  scientific  data,  we  find  in  addition  to  the  human  character- 
istics already  noted  this  other — the  capacity  of  attracting  and  of  being 
attracted  by  some  human  beings,  of  repelling  and  being  repelled  by 
others.  This  power  of  attracting  and  repelling  other  humans  some  call 
love  or  hatred,  affinity  or  definity.  That  such  a  power  exists  in  this 
universe  no  human  worthy  of  the  name  will  think  of  denying.  Must  not 
the  Ultimate  Potentiality  of  this  universe,  in  which  man  is  included, 
possess  it?  If  the  Ultimate  did  not  possess  it,  would  the  human  have  it? 
Scientifically  expressed,  whatever  man  possesses  has  come  from  his 
Ultimate  ancestor,  directly  or  indirectly.  The  method  of  its  coming  to 
its  present  degree  of  manifestation  in  the  human  does  not  affect  either 
the  universal  potentiality  or  its  realization  in  the  human.  The  finite 
manifestation  becomes  the  evidence  that  the  universal  potentiality,  or 
Ultimate,  possesses  this  element.  The  question  has  been  asked,  "Is  this 
characteristic  in  the  Ultimate  active  or  passive,  real  or  only  possible?" 
Word  the'  question  a  little  differently  and  it  answers  itself.  Must  not 
the  universal  potentiality,  the  Ultimate,  possess  both  elements  of  this 
characteristic,  the  passive  and  the  active,  the  real  and  the  potential? 
The  Ultimate  cannot  but  be  reality  as  truly  as  possibility,  activity  as  well 
as  passivity.  We  see  these  negative  and  positive  elements  right  before 
us,  we  feel  them  within  us.  The  Ultimate's  potentiality  must  include 
them  both.  Is  not  the  passive  the  transcendent  and  the  active  the  immi- 
nent? Is  not  the  potential  the  Ultimate  and  this  present  only  the  earth 
manifestation  or  becoming? 

Is  there  anything  in  common  in  the  three  views  of  the  appearance  of 
this  universe,  the  theory  of  Creation,  of  Emanation  and  of  Evolution? 
Did  you  ever  hear  of  a  creation  by  nothing,  an  emanation  from  nothing 
or  an  evolution  out  of  nothing?  Looking  at  the  question  from  this  view- 
point, do  not  the  three  views  expressed  by  these  three  words  creation, 
emanation  and  evolution  imply  an ,  Ultimate  possessing  the  potentiality 
of  whatever  is?  Since  we  see  around  us  and  feel  within  us  not  merely 
sensuous  life,  but  conscious  Being,  must  not  the  Ultimate  possess  this 
characteristic  or  element  also?  Can  we  get  around  the  conclusion  that 
the  Ultimate  must  be  a  Being,  not  a  thing,  a  conscious  Being-,  not  an 
unconscious  energy,  an  active  Being,  not  an  inert  mass  of  substance, 
force,  law  and  order?  The  question  will  yet  face  us,  How  has  this 
Ultimate  Being  wrought  in  the  past  ?  How  is  He  working  in  the  present  ? 
If  we  can  discover  this  it  will  help  us  to  answer  the  previous  question, 


16  A     SCIENCE    OF    THE     ULTIMATE 

at  least  in  part.  When  what  we  term  new  objects  or  organisms  appear 
today,  whence  and  how  come  they?  Do  they  not  come  from  previous 
objects,  organisms,  transformed,  recombined,  transmuted,  and  lo!  the 
new?  Mark,  also,  these  changes  are  effected  by  forces  working  accord- 
ing to  laws.  Mark  further  that  so  far  as  man  in  his  work  is  concerned 
these  changes  all  depend  on  an  initial  energy,  will  power,  human  choice. 
If,  then,  man  possesses  this  capacity  of  willing  and  exercises  it  directly 
or  indirectly  in  whatever  he  does,  must  not  this  capacity  be  from  the 
Ultimate?  If,  now,  all  initial  stages,  changes  which  man  effects  are  by 
will  power  exercised,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  work  of  the  Ultimate? 
Whence  Universe  initials?     From  Universal  will?    The  Ultimate? 


APPENDIX. 

I.  If  intuition  be  the  Ultimate  intelligence  guiding  the  finite,  would  it 
not  have  been  better  for  the  human  never  to  have  developed  beyond  this 
intuitional  stage  and  become  self-directing  or  a  reasoning  and  choosing 
being?  Which  is  the  highest  being,  one  guided  by  another  (even  if  the 
other  be  good),  doing  his  will  automatically,  or  one  self-guiding,  having 
the  ability  to  choose  whom  he  will  follow,  with  whom  he  will  come  into 
harmony?  Right  or  wrong,  is  not  the  consensus  of  the  best  of  humans, 
"Give  me  the  ability  to  choose  even  though  I  must  take  with  it  the 
responsibility  of  choosing  right?  Let  me  be  a  god  even  if  it  involve  the 
danger  of  becoming  a  devil." 

II.  If  whatever  we  see  on  this  earth  is  a  manifestation  of  the  Ultimate 
Potentiality,  whence  evil?  What  is  evil?  All  suffering?  No.  some 
suffering  is  a  good,  the  very  greatest  good  which  could  come  to  us  under 
the  circumstances.  What  is  evil?  Is  it  not  voluntarily  getting  out  of 
harmony  with  our  environment,  the  Ultimate  included?  Choosing  to 
work  at  some  point  in  opposition  to  this  universal  harmony  and  thus  in 
opposition  to  the  Ultimate?  What,  then,  is  evil?  The  misuse  of  ability 
to  do  good.  The  ability  to  do  good  comes  from  the  Ultimate,  the  misuse 
of  it  is  from  man  or  finite  intelligence. 

III.  Can  we  discover,  then,  the  law  of  attraction  and  repulsion  between 
the  Ultimate  and  the  finite?  We  are  accustomed  to  say  that  in  the  so- 
called  material  realms  opposites  attract  and  likes  repel.  But  is  this  the 
law  when  we  reach  the  rational,  the  volitional  stages  of  existence?  Do 
we  not  find  here  that  beings  of  like  tastes,  interests,  pursuits,  attract 
each  the  other,  while  those  of  opposite  tastes,  interests,  pursuits,  repel? 
Sportsmen  attract  sportsmen,  students  attract  students  and  business  men 
are  drawn  together  by  similar  interests,  while  those  who  love  study 
and  investigation  repel  sportsmen,  and  they  in  turn  repel  men  who  love 
business  or  affairs  of  state. 

Between  the  Ultimate  and  the  finites.  what  then  is  probably  the  law? 
Is  it  not  that  the  finites  wishing  and  seeking  to  live  in  harmony  with  the 
Ultimate  are  attracted  by  and  in  turn  attract  Him  in  proportion  to  their 
Volitional  strength?  While  the  finites  wishing  to  live  out  of  harmony 
repel  and  are  repelled  by  this  same  Ultimate  Being? 


The  American  University  Union 
**************?******* 

The  American  University  Union — An  Educational  In- 
stitution composed  of  students  and  teachers  in  all  parts 
of  the  country.  It  is  carrying  on  a  system  of  Religious 
Education  from  the  Scientific  Viewpoint  in  our  State  and 
National  Institutions.  Its  definition  of  Religion  is  "the 
recognition  of  our  relations  and  the  performance  of  the 
duties  growing  out  of  those  relations" — our  relations  to 
whatever  is  above  us,  to  what  is  on  our  plane,  and  to 
what  is  below  us. 

Chairs  of  the  Science  of  Religion.  One  of  the  most 
important  movements  in  the  development  of  the  Univer- 
sity Union  is  that  of  establishing  in  each  of  the  United 
States,  a  chair  of  the  Science  of  Religion. 

The  University  Union,  which  is  an  incorporated  insti- 
tution, has  decided  to  extend  this  Religious  Educational 
movement  until  it  takes  on  an  International  Character. 

Dr.  J.  G.  Rodger,  President  of  the  American  University 
Union,  is  a  graduate  of  Yale  and  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.  He  was  a  graduate  student  for 
four  years  in  Harvard,  Edinburgh,  and  Leipzig  Univer- 
sities. He  has  been  delegated  to  visit  Japan,  and,  if  the 
way  is  open,  establish- a  Chair  of  the  Science  of  Religion 
in  Japan.  He  is  also  to  visit  China  and  India  for  the 
same  purpose. 

The  Modus  Operandi  of  this  Religious  Educational 
work  is  very  simple.  The  Professor,  for  example,  who 
holds  the  Chair  of  the  Science  of  Religion,  visits  the  vari- 
ous State  Normals,  Colleges  and  State  University,  and 
gives  short  courses  of  lectures  on  Religion,  not  from  the 
Biblical  Standpoint — that  is  prohibited  by  law — but  from 
the  Scientific  Viewpoint,  which  neither  National  nor  State 
laws  of  any  country  prohibits.  He  next  visits  private  and 
denominational  colleges  and  universities  and  does  the 
same  work  if  they  desire  it.  In  the  cities  where  there 
are  no  State  Institutions  he  holds  Religio-Scientific  Insti- 


tutes.    These  Institutes  consist  of  a  course  of  six  lectures 
which  are  altogether  undenominational  and  unsectarian. 

This  "Higher  Religious  Education,"  as  it  has  been 
termed  by  some,  being  based  on  Scientific  data,  and  using 
Scientific  methods  of  research,  is  destined  to  become  an 
International  System  of  Religious  Thought,  for  scientific 
data  and  methods  of  research  are  the  same  the  world 
over.  All  tribes  and  peoples  and  nations  see  the  same 
stars,  sun  and  planets,  come  in  contact  with  soil  and 
plant,  animal  and  fellow  man.  In  other  words,  are  study- 
ing the  same  great  Book  of  the  Universe. 

In  view  of  this  fact  may  we  not  expect  that  the  day  is 
coming  when  we  shall  have  an  international  religion? 

Head  Office— Washington,  D.  C. 
Western  Offices — Berkeley,  Calif.,  and  Los  Angeles,  Calif. 

*  *  *■  ?  * 

OFFICERS  AND  DIRECTORS 


Rev.  Jay.  G.  Rodger,  Ph.  D.,  President  and  Professor  in 
the  California  Chair  of  the  Science  of  Religion. 

Rev.  Edward  Everet  Hale,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Vice-President 
and  Chaplain  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Prof.  B.  L.  Seawell,  Sc.  D.,  Secretary  and  Professor  of 
Biology,  Warrensburg,  Mo.      ' 

Mr.  D.  N.  Day,  154  Fourth  Ave.,  N.  Y.,  Treasurer. 

Mr.  C.  C.  Pierce,  127  W.  Sixth  St.,  Los  Angeles,  Calif., 
Assistant  Treasurer. 

Ex-Governor  R.  C.  Powers,  Los  Angeles,  Chairman  of  the 
Calif.  Univ.  Union. 

President  W.  E.  Garrison,  Las  Vegas,  New  Mexico. 

And  the  officers  of  the  various  State  University  Unions. 

In  addition  to  the  above  the  officers  of  the  Religious 
Education  Association  have  been  chosen  by  the  American 
University  Union  as  honorary  Directors  and  Advisers. 

Price,  50c. 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

PAT.  JAN.  21,1908 


YD   03 


U.C.  BERKELEY  UBR/J 


CDM3EDD23 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


RFCTD  LP 

NOV  3  -  mi 


